DEVBOOK

Bridge

7 min read

EditReport

A remote control defines operations such as power and volume. A television brand supplies the hardware-specific implementation. Connecting the two through a stable device interface allows either side to change without rebuilding the other hierarchy.

The Bridge pattern separates an abstraction from its implementation so both can evolve independently. The abstraction holds an implementation interface instead of inheriting from a concrete implementation. For payments, operation types such as charges or refunds form one dimension, while providers form another. Combining both dimensions through inheritance produces classes such as StripeCharge and PayPalRefund. A bridge keeps the two sets separate and joins them through delegation.

classDiagram
    class PaymentAbstraction {

        #implementor IPaymentImplementor
        +Execute()
    }
    class SingleCharge {
        +Execute()
    }
    class SubscriptionPayment {
        +Execute()
    }
    class IPaymentImplementor {

        +ProcessAmount()
        +Refund()
    }
    class StripeImplementor
    class PayPalImplementor
    class BankTransferImplementor
    PaymentAbstraction <|-- SingleCharge
    PaymentAbstraction <|-- SubscriptionPayment
    PaymentAbstraction o--> IPaymentImplementor : bridge
    IPaymentImplementor <|.. StripeImplementor
    IPaymentImplementor <|.. PayPalImplementor
    IPaymentImplementor <|.. BankTransferImplementor

Bridge vs Adapter

Software Architecture/Patterns/Design Patterns/Structural/Adapter retrofits an interface that cannot be changed. Bridge is designed around two independent dimensions from the start. Legacy integration points toward Adapter. A new model with independently growing abstractions and implementations points toward Bridge.

Problem

PaymentService has methods per provider. Adding a new payment type (subscription) AND a new provider (BankTransfer) causes a combinatorial explosion:

// ⚠️ 3 providers × 3 payment types = 9 methods, growing to N×M
public class PaymentService
{
    public Task<Payment> ProcessStripeChargeAsync(Order order) { /* Stripe API */ return null!; }
    public Task<Payment> ProcessStripeSubscriptionAsync(Customer customer, Product plan) { /* Stripe */ return null!; }
    public Task<bool> ProcessStripeRefundAsync(Payment payment) { /* Stripe */ return null!; }
 
    public Task<Payment> ProcessPayPalChargeAsync(Order order) { /* PayPal API */ return null!; }
    public Task<Payment> ProcessPayPalSubscriptionAsync(Customer customer, Product plan) { /* PayPal */ return null!; }
    public Task<bool> ProcessPayPalRefundAsync(Payment payment) { /* PayPal */ return null!; }
 
    // ⚠️ Adding BankTransfer requires 3 more methods
    // ⚠️ Adding "partial refund" payment type requires 2 more methods (one per provider)
    // ⚠️ Shared logic (retry, logging, idempotency) duplicated across all methods
}

A partial refund must be implemented once per provider, and every new provider needs its own version of every payment operation. The two dimensions are locked together.

Solution

Separate payment operations from provider implementations:

// Implementation interface — the "bridge"
public interface IPaymentGateway
{
    Task<string> AuthorizeAsync(decimal amount, string currency, PaymentMethod method);
    Task<string> CaptureAsync(string authorizationId);
    Task<bool> RefundAsync(string transactionId, decimal amount);
    Task<string> CreateSubscriptionAsync(string customerId, string planId, decimal amount);
}
 
// Concrete implementations — one per provider
public class StripeGateway(StripeOptions options) : IPaymentGateway
{
    public async Task<string> AuthorizeAsync(decimal amount, string currency, PaymentMethod method)
    {
        // Stripe-specific API call
        var intent = await StripeClient.CreatePaymentIntentAsync(amount, currency, method.Token);
        return intent.Id;
    }
    public Task<string> CaptureAsync(string authorizationId) =>
        StripeClient.CapturePaymentIntentAsync(authorizationId);
    public Task<bool> RefundAsync(string transactionId, decimal amount) =>
        StripeClient.CreateRefundAsync(transactionId, amount);
    public Task<string> CreateSubscriptionAsync(string customerId, string planId, decimal amount) =>
        StripeClient.CreateSubscriptionAsync(customerId, planId);
}
 
public class PayPalGateway(PayPalOptions options) : IPaymentGateway
{
    public Task<string> AuthorizeAsync(decimal amount, string currency, PaymentMethod method) =>
        PayPalClient.CreateOrderAsync(amount, currency, method.PayPalToken);
    public Task<string> CaptureAsync(string authorizationId) =>
        PayPalClient.CaptureOrderAsync(authorizationId);
    public Task<bool> RefundAsync(string transactionId, decimal amount) =>
        PayPalClient.RefundCaptureAsync(transactionId, amount);
    public Task<string> CreateSubscriptionAsync(string customerId, string planId, decimal amount) =>
        PayPalClient.CreateSubscriptionAsync(customerId, planId);
}
 
// Abstraction — payment types, each using the gateway bridge
public abstract class PaymentOperation(IPaymentGateway gateway)
{
    protected readonly IPaymentGateway Gateway = gateway;
    public abstract Task<Payment> ExecuteAsync(Order order);
}
 
// ✅ Concrete abstractions — payment types vary independently of providers
public class SingleChargePayment(IPaymentGateway gateway) : PaymentOperation(gateway)
{
    public override async Task<Payment> ExecuteAsync(Order order)
    {
        var authId = await Gateway.AuthorizeAsync(order.Total, "USD", order.Customer.PaymentMethod);
        var captureId = await Gateway.CaptureAsync(authId);
        return new Payment(captureId, order.Total, PaymentStatus.Captured);
    }
}
 
public class SubscriptionPayment(IPaymentGateway gateway, string planId) : PaymentOperation(gateway)
{
    public override async Task<Payment> ExecuteAsync(Order order)
    {
        var subscriptionId = await Gateway.CreateSubscriptionAsync(
            order.Customer.Id.ToString(), planId, order.Total);
        return new Payment(subscriptionId, order.Total, PaymentStatus.Subscribed);
    }
}
 
// ✅ Adding PartialRefundPayment = one new class, works with ALL providers
public class PartialRefundPayment(IPaymentGateway gateway, string originalTransactionId, decimal refundAmount)
    : PaymentOperation(gateway)
{
    public override async Task<Payment> ExecuteAsync(Order order)
    {
        var success = await Gateway.RefundAsync(originalTransactionId, refundAmount);
        return new Payment(originalTransactionId, refundAmount,
            success ? PaymentStatus.Refunded : PaymentStatus.Failed);
    }
}
 
// ✅ Adding BankTransferGateway = one new class, works with ALL payment types
public class BankTransferGateway(BankOptions options) : IPaymentGateway { /* ... */ }
 
// Usage: combine any abstraction with any implementation
var stripeGateway = new StripeGateway(stripeOptions);
var singleCharge = new SingleChargePayment(stripeGateway);
var payment = await singleCharge.ExecuteAsync(order);
 
// Switch to PayPal: change the gateway, keep the payment type
var paypalGateway = new PayPalGateway(paypalOptions);
var paypalCharge = new SingleChargePayment(paypalGateway);

A new payment-operation variant expressible through the existing gateway primitives needs one PaymentOperation subclass. A new provider needs one IPaymentGateway implementation. Adding a genuinely new primitive changes IPaymentGateway and every provider implementation; Bridge prevents a provider-by-operation subclass cross-product, not evolution of the shared implementor contract.

Related .NET Abstractions

ADO.NET DbConnection / DbCommand provide base types for database-specific implementations such as SqlConnection. This is provider polymorphism, not a clear Bridge by itself: application code still varies along one provider dimension unless a separate abstraction hierarchy composes with it.

ILogger<T> and logging providers separate logging calls from destinations. That boundary is closer to Strategy or ordinary interface polymorphism because the consumer has no second abstraction hierarchy that varies independently.

IDistributedCache follows the same shape. DI selects one cache implementation behind one application-facing interface. It becomes Bridge-like only when another independently changing abstraction composes with that provider contract.

Pitfalls

Premature abstraction. One implementation and one operation do not need two class hierarchies. A direct implementation is easier to trace. Bridge earns its extra indirection when the second independent dimension appears.

Implementation details in the bridge. A gateway that exposes PaymentIntentId has embedded a Stripe concept in the shared contract. Provider-neutral terms such as transactionId keep other implementations from pretending to support a foreign model.

False independence. Bridge assumes the combinations are meaningful. If subscriptions only work with Stripe, provider and payment type are coupled, and the abstraction advertises flexibility the system does not have.

Tradeoffs

ConcernBridgeMonolithic class hierarchy
Adding a new providerOne new implementation classN new methods (one per payment type)
Adding an operation variant from existing gateway primitivesOne new abstraction classM new methods (one per provider)
Shared logic (retry, logging)In the abstraction base classDuplicated across all methods
ComplexityTwo class hierarchies, indirectionSingle hierarchy, direct calls
TestabilityMock IPaymentGateway for abstraction testsMust mock entire service

Bridge becomes useful when both dimensions already vary or are about to vary. A 2×2 = 4 combination is a useful prompt to inspect the design, though repeated methods that differ only by provider are stronger evidence. With one dimension, Strategy or a direct implementation is usually enough.

Questions

References

Graph View

Backlinks